Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

blip.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 97 posts

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#21

Post by sandGorgon »

usaar333 wrote: post #13
sandGorgon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

upvoted. We buy our linux-based office software (we do NOT use OpenOffice). There should be more paid-for apps that are of much better quality than what's available. I believe that Linux (or some distro) should incorporate licensing/DRM into the OS itself - which you have the freedom to turn on or off. More or less, it means an app store, but indie developers will not have to worry about building licensing into their…

What office software do you use btw? I've been looking for some linux-based powerpoint replacement (impress does not cut it)

Softmaker - mind you that we need it mainly for the spreadsheet, but I think the presentation software is also quite decent.Note that they dont have very good compatibility with ODF (sigh...).

The license is extremely liberal.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#22

Post by sandGorgon »

drivebyacct wrote: post #9
sandGorgon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

upvoted. We buy our linux-based office software (we do NOT use OpenOffice). There should be more paid-for apps that are of much better quality than what's available. I believe that Linux (or some distro) should incorporate licensing/DRM into the OS itself - which you have the freedom to turn on or off. More or less, it means an app store, but indie developers will not have to worry about building licensing into their…

What? Microsoft and OS X have rich libraries of cost-based applications and they don't require any licensing or DRM embedded in the OS. Why on earth would an operating system that hinges itself on openness take a more Draconian step than any other major OS distributer has (mobile OSes aside)?

Because you need to jumpstart the paid-apps ecosystem. I am not talking about approval processes, but something more on the lines of an Android app store than an iphone one.

What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway

The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which Linux inherently has. Dont we _already_ have an app store in Linux?

Only, there is no way for a developer to make money off Apt or Yum.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#23

Post by sophacles »

codavid wrote: post #10
krschultz wrote: post #2

The easiest problem to tackle is .RPM vs .DEB debate that should have ended about 3 years ago. If the LSB had said .DEB it might have happened, but since the "official" standard and the actual majority are diametrically opposed it doesn't want to happen. And of course the filesystems don't perfectly match across distros.

The .rpm vs .deb debate is a fallacy. The real issue is that when packaging for say debian and RHEL you have to care about different glibc, different compiler versions with potentially different ABI, different filesystem conventions, different scripts for post install, etc... The format in which the files are packaged is the least of the issues compared to that. For example, packaging for opensuse once you have a pac…

Meh, from a source point of view, once I have a debian/ directory, with a properly set up rules file, building becomes trivial. Then it is matter of generating a package per-distro/version with the right environment. This could be very well done in an automated manner and a few vms.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#24

Post by raquo »

houseabsolute wrote: post #19
jberryman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the key differentiating factor for most people is free _as in freedom_.whether they came to linux because their hard-drive crashed and they dont have permission to re_install the OS they payed for that came with their machine, or they are a geek who enjoys the power that comes from the freedom to tinker and benefit from others` tinkering. no one is aware of the cost of their operating system anyway.

> no one is aware of the cost of their operating system anyway. Basic macroeconomics suggests this is unlikely.

They may be aware, but not care. The last legal Windows CD I have seen was Windows 98. All others that I ever used were preinstalled.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#25

Post by jodrellblank »

hobb0001 wrote: post #14
moultano wrote: post #4

I wish talks like these had transcripts. I listened to the first half, but don't have the time for the whole thing.

tldw? Anyone? sigh It's so annoying when you have to sit through a hour-long video for what would otherwise be a 5-10 minute read.

Might get something from the Mozilla Drmbeat project in a few years; maybe Google's speech recognition subtitles will be able to e port as transcript when it's properly live, too...

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#26

Post by julio_the_squid »

houseabsolute wrote: post #8
theschwa wrote: post #5

I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more business savy.

The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do,…

The differentiating factor for me is that it's just what I've used for 12 years and what I'm most productive in.

Serious Linux users use it because it's the only thing that fits the way they work. Linux has all the interface and programs I'm used to, so of course I'd be more likely to buy software for it than any other OS. What holds me back is that there isn't any software I need that I don't have...

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#27

Post by krakensden »

julio_the_squid wrote: post #26
houseabsolute wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do,…

The differentiating factor for me is that it's just what I've used for 12 years and what I'm most productive in. Serious Linux users use it because it's the only thing that fits the way they work. Linux has all the interface and programs I'm used to, so of course I'd be more likely to buy software for it than any other OS. What holds me back is that there isn't any software I need that I don't have...

I've bought some games for Linux

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#28

Post by thingie »

richardw wrote: post #15

So much of Linux is designed and modified by committee, so change is slow and painful. Apple managed to get a seriously hot UI onto FreeBSD in a (relatively) short time. Linux has everyone and their dog bartering to make changes, so the UI goes nowhere. Stop copying Windows, already. Start menu sucks. Dump X.

Did you listen to the talk? :) X.org is quite an advanced graphic system mostly doing what you want it to do. Throwing it out and trying to make something new (for what gain?) means wasting so much resources that it's not even nice. (And how is X related to some start menu?)

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#29

Post by codavid »

sophacles wrote: post #23
codavid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The .rpm vs .deb debate is a fallacy. The real issue is that when packaging for say debian and RHEL you have to care about different glibc, different compiler versions with potentially different ABI, different filesystem conventions, different scripts for post install, etc... The format in which the files are packaged is the least of the issues compared to that. For example, packaging for opensuse once you have a pac…

Meh, from a source point of view, once I have a debian/ directory, with a properly set up rules file, building becomes trivial. Then it is matter of generating a package per-distro/version with the right environment. This could be very well done in an automated manner and a few vms.

Which is exactly what the build service gives you...

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#30

Post by sirn »

pyre wrote: post #3
krschultz wrote: post #2

The easiest problem to tackle is .RPM vs .DEB debate that should have ended about 3 years ago. If the LSB had said .DEB it might have happened, but since the "official" standard and the actual majority are diametrically opposed it doesn't want to happen. And of course the filesystems don't perfectly match across distros.

From what I hear, .DEB is a bitch to do anything outside of the norm, whereas .RPM is much easier and less complex of a package format. That said, I much prefer the apt system on Debian, and Ubuntu. What really needs to happen is to take the best of both worlds and merge it into something of a complete system.

Well, like Arch Linux's Pacman and AUR? :)

I found Pacman to be easy and simple--on the same level as APT, and when the binary package doesn't do what you want, packing your own package is really easy.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System

Post reply on HN